Groups - Charter-clarification-rev2 uploaded

Submitter's message

        This is a proposed update to the charter which seems to us to better qualify as a "clarification" (as opposed to a scope-changing rechartering). Issue with previous "clarification":

- by allowing the *standardization* ? not just the definitions - of concrete component type to be in-scope (?Standardization of a basic set of non-vendor specific, concrete component types,??) then the charter allows component definitions of specific applications stacks such as some ?non-vendor specific? open-source to become TOSCA standards, while possibly competing with vendor-specific ones that cannot get the status of TOSCA standard, the latter thus being at a disadvantage.

- So the new revision here is keeping  ?concrete component type? definitions in-scope of TOSCA TC activity, but not to become ?standards?: they would remain non-normative, as suggested by deliverable #2.

- At the same time, some abstract def of component types (e.g. generic ones such as ?DBMS?, ?Web Server?, ?OS?, etc.) can and should be in-scope to be standardized.

- The term ?non-vendor specific? is also too vague and not really helping, according to our legal counsel. So removed here from the "re-clarification".
        

-- Mr Jacques Durand
        
    

    
        Document Name: Charter-clarification-rev2

        
        Description

        Issue with previous "clarification":

- by allowing the *standardization* ? not just the definitions - of

concrete component type to be in-scope (?Standardization of a basic set of

non-vendor specific, concrete component types,??) then the charter allows

component definitions of specific applications stacks such as some

?non-vendor specific? open-source to become TOSCA standards, while possibly

competing with vendor-specific ones that cannot get the status of TOSCA

standard, the latter thus being at a disadvantage.

- So the new revision here is keeping  ?concrete component type?

definitions in-scope of TOSCA TC activity, but not to become ?standards?:

they would remain non-normative, as suggested by deliverable #2.

- At the same time, some abstract def of component types (e.g. generic ones

such as ?DBMS?, ?Web Server?, ?OS?, etc.) can and should be in-scope to be

standardized.

- The term ?non-vendor specific? is also too vague and not really helping,

according to our legal counsel. So removed here from the

"re-clarification".        

        Download Latest Revision

        Public Download Link
        
        Submitter: Mr Jacques Durand

                Group: OASIS Topology and Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) TC

        Folder: Meeting Notes

        Date submitted: 2013-06-18 23:40:00